Gov. Walker to hand out state assests in no-bid contracts

[trenchfoot]

Its funny, I actually work with a lot of Union people at my current job and they are almost all Republicans. I even had one telling me the other day how all the liberal judges were going to side with the company and not let them strike. lol. Even at my last job in Ohio, the majority of the Union I dealt with was republican.

I know that you think Union workers are lepers, so you never associate with them, so you just like Beck and Rush tell you all about them. From what I have seen, at three different major aerospace companies, they're just like any other large group of people.

Thank you for bringing up a very good point.

It's also been my experience that I've found that union members are, by and large, a very diverse group of people politically, morally, ethically and religiously speaking. They may tightly join together when their cause is common, but they will agree to disagree on all things, especially political and religious things, all the time.

The union member of today is totally unlike those of yesteryear. They are a whole lot more independently minded, much more educated and much more diverse in their views and values.

You know.....like regular people.....unlike what FOX and Limbaugh make them out to be.

 

[Craig234]

Meh. Selling money making assets to cover temporary shortfalls is a fool's move, anyway, even if bidding is employed. The buyers will demand return on investment, so Wisconsin residents just pay more for electricity forever rather than more in taxes for a period of time. Odds are that they'll pay a lot more under Walker's plan, which is why Repubs are doing it, anyway. This isn't like selling off undeveloped land, at all.

Have you heard about some of the asset sales going on by states and cities?

Matt Taibbi's Griftopia has some good stories.

Chicago's Daley did a disastrous thing, selling off the city's parking meters to a private consortium (some owned by we don't know, some by a middle easter country).

He sold it for way under market value, rushing it through, for some cash to balance the budget for a short period. Other cities are looking at the same.

The *Pennsylvania Turnpike* was nearly sold similarly.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Could you answer a simple question.....Why does that provision have any business in the bill in the first place?

Shouldn't it be in a separate bill that deals with...oh...I don't know....state energy policy?

I'd have no problem separating it out from this bill. I don't believe I've ever argued that it should be in this bill, but rather have added some reality into this issue since the leftists here seem to want to make it all about a conspiracy.

 

[ayabe]

Aside from Spidey's half-hearted "to cut out the ineligible minorities!" argument, no one has addressed the central issue - how is it in the states' interest to accept no bid offers on valuable assets? What if Bahrain or the UAE sweep in and gobble them up? It's automatically in the best interest of WI by law, right? Didn't the city of Chicago sell their parking meters to some middle eastern entity? Why are we so willing sacrifice the future for short term gain? Who exactly inserted that language and what were their motives?

No bid contracts or sales are just not in the best of the stakeholders, in this case the taxpayers of WI.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Aside from Spidey's half-hearted "to cut out the ineligible minorities!" argument, no one has addressed the central issue - how is it in the states' interest to accept no bid offers on valuable assets? What if Bahrain or the UAE sweep in and gobble them up? It's automatically in the best interest of WI by law, right? Didn't the city of Chicago sell their parking meters to some middle eastern entity? Why are we so willing sacrifice the future for short term gain? Who exactly inserted that language and what were their motives?

No bid contracts or sales are just not in the best of the stakeholders, in this case the taxpayers of WI.

I already offered a potential reason which is way more plausible than some half baked conspiracy theory the leftists have.

 

[airdata]

When somebody says no bid contracts I immediately think of

 

[ayabe]

I already offered a potential reason which is way more plausible than some half baked conspiracy theory the leftists have.

Not really, to streamline the bidding process? What exactly needs to be streamlined? State's put all sorts of things out to bid from highway construction to the milk served at schools, it's pretty damned efficient. This is nothing but a gift to someone, who that someone is remains to be seen.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Not really, to streamline the bidding process? What exactly needs to be streamlined? State's put all sorts of things out to bid from highway construction to the milk served at schools, it's pretty damned efficient. This is nothing but a gift to someone, who that someone is remains to be seen.

I didn't say streamline nor did I suggest it was inefficient - maybe you should read what I posted again with an open mind instead of letting your bias set your knee off.

 

[ayabe]

I didn't say streamline nor did I suggest it was inefficient - maybe you should read what I posted again with an open mind instead of letting your bias set your knee off.

No, this is what you stated:

"It's a may or may not thing. It doesn't mean they will be sold no-bid, but as I noted earlier it may be to open up the possibility due to normal bid regulations being prohibitive."


There is NOTHING prohibitive about the current regulations, you stated that perhaps that's why...it's not. So again, you've offered nothing.

Also it does mean it will be sold no-bid as any offer is automatically accepted and deemed in the best interest of the state. That is the language.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

No, this is what you stated:

"It's a may or may not thing. It doesn't mean they will be sold no-bid, but as I noted earlier it may be to open up the possibility due to normal bid regulations being prohibitive."


There is NOTHING prohibitive about the current regulations, you stated that perhaps that's why...it's not. So again, you've offered nothing.

Also it does mean it will be sold no-bid as any offer is automatically accepted and deemed in the best interest of the state. That is the language.

no, you are wrong. It is a may or may not thing. It doesn't say it will as you claim.
Also, do you know anything about the gov't bidding process? I stated I don't know the specifics in Wisconsin but in other states, it needs 3 like bids(apples to apples) to be able to even award the contract. So in the case of these aged power plants and such - they may not attract the required bids. Again, it may be the case in Wisconsin that they need the 3(or however many) and IF that is the case then it's an acceptable option to have out there.

 

[Thump553]

no, you are wrong. It is a may or may not thing. It doesn't say it will as you claim.
Also, do you know anything about the gov't bidding process? I stated I don't know the specifics in Wisconsin but in other states, it needs 3 like bids(apples to apples) to be able to even award the contract. So in the case of these aged power plants and such - they may not attract the required bids. Again, it may be the case in Wisconsin that they need the 3(or however many) and IF that is the case then it's an acceptable option to have out there.

That's not the case in my state. I don't know what jurdisction you are basing your guess upon.

Also, instead of directing people to scour back through this multipage thread to discover the germ of your wisdom about why no-bid contracts are a good idea, why don't you just come out and specifically enlighten us with your wisdom as to why anyone should trust any politician with a no-bid process for valuable resources?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

That's not the case in my state. I don't know what jurdisction you are basing your guess upon.

Also, instead of directing people to scour back through this multipage thread to discover the germ of your wisdom about why no-bid contracts are a good idea, why don't you just come out and specifically enlighten us with your wisdom as to why anyone should trust any politician with a no-bid process for valuable resources?

I never said it was a "good idea". I have merely offered it as a plausible explanation of why one might do it. It is also much more plausible than some half baked conspiracy theory...

 

[Thump553]

I never said it was a "good idea". I have merely offered it as a plausible explanation of why one might do it. It is also much more plausible than some half baked conspiracy theory...

Please, this thread is five pages long-link us to the wisdom you posted so we can evaluate it. I stand by my position that no-bid contracts are always wrong-except perhaps in dire immediate emergencies or for trivial matters-and am highly suspicious of ANY politician seeking them, even if he a teabagger honey.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Please, this thread is five pages long-link us to the wisdom you posted so we can evaluate it. I stand by my position that no-bid contracts are always wrong-except perhaps in dire immediate emergencies or for trivial matters-and am highly suspicious of ANY politician seeking them, even if he a teabagger honey.

post 110 summarizes it since you are lazy.

 

[FuzzyBee]

It's also like the Republicans' Medicare Part D - a bill containing a sentence blocking the government from negotiating prices which was there for no reason but to give a windfall profit to their #1 donor industry, big pharma.

A bill passed in the middle of the night, with unprecedented parliamentary maneuvers.

This bill has this buried provision that allows for corrupt profit for political favors, passed in the middle of the night, with unprecedented parliamentary maneuvers.

Funny - "big pharma" also donated more to Obama's election than McCain's, and what happened to pharma reform in the healthcare plan?

Keep slobbing that Democratic knob, though, kiddo.

 

[werepossum]

Aside from Spidey's half-hearted "to cut out the ineligible minorities!" argument, no one has addressed the central issue - how is it in the states' interest to accept no bid offers on valuable assets? What if Bahrain or the UAE sweep in and gobble them up? It's automatically in the best interest of WI by law, right? Didn't the city of Chicago sell their parking meters to some middle eastern entity? Why are we so willing sacrifice the future for short term gain? Who exactly inserted that language and what were their motives?

No bid contracts or sales are just not in the best of the stakeholders, in this case the taxpayers of WI.

Pretty much this. While the usual frenetic circle jerk of lefty media outlets screaming conspiracy whilst admitting there is in fact no evidence of conspiracy is always amusing, they have provided a valuable public service in exposing the language establishing the governor's right to sell public holdings without bids. That's a very bad thing indeed. If one individual or firm is interested in buying something, chances are at least one or two others are as well. And damned few individuals or firms are willing to pay a fair market value for something they can pick up more cheaply. Nothing in Walker's background suggests that he or his staff have the expertise to properly price public holdings, even if he has the best of intentions, and we should never assume any politician has the best of intentions.

No-bid contracts or sales should always be a last resort, with everything documented 100% so that everyone agrees why the contract or sale must go through without a bid. Typically these should be limited to those very rare situations where only one company can provide a certain project or service, or where a bid has been held and no one tendered a bid (in which case the negotiated price should be published and open to counter-offers from other entities for ten business days or so.) I like Walker, but if he sells a power plant or other significant state properties without bid, I'm going to assume he did so out of either political or financial corruption. So should everyone.

 

[ayabe]

no, you are wrong. It is a may or may not thing. It doesn't say it will as you claim.
Also, do you know anything about the gov't bidding process? I stated I don't know the specifics in Wisconsin but in other states, it needs 3 like bids(apples to apples) to be able to even award the contract. So in the case of these aged power plants and such - they may not attract the required bids. Again, it may be the case in Wisconsin that they need the 3(or however many) and IF that is the case then it's an acceptable option to have out there.

Part of my job is analyzing bidding patterns for various state agencies, but mostly focuses on highway contracts. Many, many jobs are awarded with a single or only two bids based simply on geography or capacity and there are no states that I can think of offhand that require a certain number of bids before it can be awarded - as it pertains to highway contracts.

They are obligated to get the maximum possible return which is almost impossible without an open bidding process. If they open it up and only get one bid, well that's something, at least others had their opportunity but that would be part of a pretty open process. This is the opposite, a closed process where everything is decided in secret until it's done.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Part of my job is analyzing bidding patterns for various state agencies, but mostly focuses on highway contracts. Many, many jobs are awarded with a single or only two bids based simply on geography or capacity and there are no states that I can think of offhand that require a certain number of bids before it can be awarded - as it pertains to highway contracts.

They are obligated to get the maximum possible return which is almost impossible without an open bidding process. If they open it up and only get one bid, well that's something, at least others had their opportunity but that would be part of a pretty open process. This is the opposite, a closed process where everything is decided in secret until it's done.

again, I don't know the specifics oh how Wisconsin works regarding these things but it's a much more plausible explanation than the half baked "koch" conspiracy BS.

 

[werepossum]

Part of my job is analyzing bidding patterns for various state agencies, but mostly focuses on highway contracts. Many, many jobs are awarded with a single or only two bids based simply on geography or capacity and there are no states that I can think of offhand that require a certain number of bids before it can be awarded - as it pertains to highway contracts.

They are obligated to get the maximum possible return which is almost impossible without an open bidding process. If they open it up and only get one bid, well that's something, at least others had their opportunity but that would be part of a pretty open process. This is the opposite, a closed process where everything is decided in secret until it's done.

Well said. If this is not a conspiracy, the publicity should suffice to make sure everything is done out in the open. If it is a conspiracy, the publicity should suffice to kill it.

 

[ayabe]

again, I don't know the specifics oh how Wisconsin works regarding these things but it's a much more plausible explanation than the half baked "koch" conspiracy BS.

I'm not laying the blame on the Kochtopus here, it's too easy. But it just doesn't smell right and I think if there is some obstacle to getting these sold, then there should be an open discussion about it, even if only to diffuse the appearances of impropriety.

 

[Fern]

Thsi whole 'Koch bros" thing looks like a bunch of BS to me. Worse, it's obscuring the real questions that should be asked.

#1, this doesn't look to be 'secret' thing with no oversight that many are saying:

David Benforado said he was glad there will be Joint Finance Committee review of any plant sales, but said that based on his experience running Municipal Electric Utilities of Wisconsin, there may not be much value in the plants.

So both Dems and repubs will be reviewing any proposed plant sale. This further underscores the nonexistence of any Koch bros thingy. If both Dems and repubs are reviewing any sales they can't secretly swoop in and buy assets/plants at below FMV. It can't happen.

2. Is there even any value to these plants? Looks doubtful that there is:

Jeff Plale, a former Democratic state senator who was hired by the Walker administration to run the Division of State Facilities, said he didn't think a bidding process is appropriate for the sale of the heating plants. "A bid implies that there is a value in the physical asset," he said.

(BTW: Note this Dem doesn't believe a bidding process is appropriate)

A Wisconsin utility leader and the head of a utility watchdog group both questioned why any private company would be interested in the plants.

"They'd be lucky to get one bid," said Charlie Higley, executive director of the Citizens' Utility Board, a utility customer group

David Benforado said.....that based on his experience running Municipal Electric Utilities of Wisconsin, there may not be much value in the plants.

"These plants are probably all fully depreciated plants, and that's not the time to sell," he said.

So, it appears very doubtful that there's any value to these plants. That begs the question as to why someone would even buy them. But more that later.

3. First, lets see why there's no value in the plants themselves. The Fiscal Bureau analyzed the facilities in 2005 and came up with a net value of approx $150M, but read these:

It's difficult to tell what kind of price they could fetch, particularly because of environmental liabilities. Several of the old coal plants are in potential violation of the Clean Air Act because they lack modern pollution controls, Plale (Democrat) said.

"A number of these plants have potential environmental liabilities hanging over their head. How that falls into the mix still needs to be addressed," Plale said.

4. So if the plants/assets themselves have no value because they're so old/depreciated and have a lot of maintenance and other liabilities hanging over them why would somebody buy them?

Check this:

The bill would empower the secretary of the state Department of Administration to sell the plants, which primarily serve University of Wisconsin campuses, including those in Madison and Milwaukee, as well as state prisons and other facilities.

It's hard to get an accurate assessment of their worth because they're so intertwined with the buildings they serve, said Darin Renner, an analyst with the Legislative Fiscal Bureau.

So these plants are built-in with these state buildings. Sounds to me like you've got captive customers. So, even though the plants/assets themselves aren't worth a sh!t, you're guaranteed to make a profit anyway because these state universities/building are captive customers. Either that or some buyer is going to be swindled out of money by the state.

So I think the real question here should be "is this smart plan". Or is the state reaching for some short-term budget fix (playing with number) while sacrificing in the middle to long-term by guaranteeing itself higher op costs?

Higley said he believes the state would be hard-pressed to find a lower-cost option than running the plants itself, because its borrowing costs are lower than a private company's, and it doesn't need to earn a profit on its investment.

"Any private company is going to want to earn a return on that investment, and the only way they would end up doing that is to charge higher prices for the steam or the electricity, and that means higher costs for Wisconsin," Higley said.

I.e., you'd actually want to sell these things for as little as possible, if not outright give them away, so could fairly argue for lower rates in the future.

I.e., probably best to just keep them.

Link to info quote:
http://www.jsonline.com/business/116965798.html

Fern

 

[CADsortaGUY]

I'm not laying the blame on the Kochtopus here, it's too easy. But it just doesn't smell right and I think if there is some obstacle to getting these sold, then there should be an open discussion about it, even if only to diffuse the appearances of impropriety.

Sure, and I've stated I have no issue with pulling this out for separate debate.

 

[Fern]

I'm not laying the blame on the Kochtopus here, it's too easy. But it just doesn't smell right and I think if there is some obstacle to getting these sold, then there should be an open discussion about it, even if only to diffuse the appearances of impropriety.

After reading the article linked, I'm not so sure there wasn't an open discussion. I'm more inclined to think there was, but that noboby was paying attention to it.

The Legislature's Joint Finance Committee left the no-bid language in the bill, though it added a requirement that the Republican-controlled committee would have to sign off on the deal.

So both Dems and repubs have discussed this; obviously it wasn't any kind of secret.

I think it's only popped up now because of the hated CBA part and the Koch's name really get's the far Left all excited.

I bet if this part had orginally been in a bill of it's own, nobody would've said a peep. Couldn't have been used for other political purposes/spin that way.

Getting down into the weeds about how to deal with some old and potentially worthless state assets just isn't 'sexy', nor material enough to be very important.

Fern

 

[Craig234]

After reading the article linked, I'm not so sure there wasn't an open discussion. I'm more inclined to think there was, but that noboby was paying attention to it.

Hey, tell us more what 'you bet'. It's fascinating and useful. You would be good on a jury - sleep through the trial and the vote on what 'you bet' happened.

It's not that 'you bet' isn't sometimes appropriate if it's an informed inference - it's that you clearly are abusive of it, just Making Crap Up based on nothing.

So both Dems and repubs have discussed this; obviously it wasn't any kind of secret.

Yes, eventually, when it was noticed. I bet.

I think it's only popped up now because of the hated CBA part and the Koch's name really get's the far Left all excited.

And you think that based on... nothing. As if hating the corruption of the Koch's against the people is somehow discrediting to people, and there's no issue here. Wrong.

I bet if this part had orginally been in a bill of it's own, nobody would've said a peep. Couldn't have been used for other political purposes/spin that way.

Wrong. Some people actually oppose such giveaways of public assets to private interests, and want them limited to when they're actually justified and to use things like bids.

Getting down into the weeds about how to deal with some old and potentially worthless state assets just isn't 'sexy', nor material enough to be very important.

Fern

Wrong as usual. Though it's true it wouldn't get much national attention without being bundled in with the national issues going on.

So your argument is, the corrupt selling of public assets doesn't matter because it's not sexy. That's actually a response to it getting pointed out as a problem.

Not, "corruption is bad, glad you caught it", but "shut up, that's not sexy so it should not be challenged".

And you just toss in your baseless assumption about "worthless" assets for convenience - I guess the potential means if "you bet" wins the bet.

Frickin' clueless. The same mentality that ignored the 'unimportant' clause in Medicare Part D that gave away an estimated $150 billion tax dollars to big pharma - a corrupt political reward from Republicans' biggest donor - that was a sentence buried in that bill, yet the most important part of the bill for them.

 

[FuzzyBee]

Hey, tell us more what 'you bet'. It's fascinating and useful. You would be good on a jury - sleep through the trial and the vote on what 'you bet' happened.

It's not that 'you bet' isn't sometimes appropriate if it's an informed inference - it's that you clearly are abusive of it, just Making Crap Up based on nothing.

I guess you would know about this, eh?